Hobbyist Forums banner

My TOS Shuttlecraft...

34K views 350 replies 44 participants last post by  Fozzie 
#1 ·
Okay, I'm jumping the gun a bit here, but what the hell. Please bear with me.

Hopefully within the next few days (maybe a week) I'll begin posting images of my take on the TOS shuttlecraft. I've been greatly inspired by the work of FourMadMen and Phil Broad in their efforts to reconcile the three different shuttlecraft we saw onscreen: the filming minature, the fullsize exterior mock-up and the fullsize interior mock-up. It is indeed a challenge because the exterior was definitely a vehicle intended not to have standing room inside whille the interior mock-up obviously did (most likely to faciliate filming). Today that wouldn't be a problem and an appropriately sized interior could be built as MJ originally intended and filmied with ease.

Strangely, though, I find the standing interior makes more sense conceptually for an auxiliary vehicle that is meant to operate independently from the parent ship for extended duration. The interior is also consistent aesthetically with what we saw onboard the Enterprise.

One thing I've certainly noticed while studying Phil Broad's plans of the fullsize exterior mock-up is that MJ designed a vehicle with many intriguing details that I somehow missed all these years. The design certainly bears little resemblance to the shuttlecraft depicted in FJ's Technical Manual as well as numerous depictions of the vehicle over the years. For example the "nose down" stance of the craft as well as the hull flaring outward from bow to stern. And that the craft's elevation centerline is not parallel with the engine nacelles. Very interesting. It certainly isn't a simple box design.

One issue I intended to tackle differently is that of alligning the forward "windows" as shown from the inside and out. It's quite apparent that the windows as seen on the interior mock-up are useless for piloting since one cannot see directly forward through them while seated. And if you lower the position of the windows on the exterior then it blatantly changes the face of the vehicle and it doesn't look right anymore.

I know they were intended to be windows in the conventional sense, but they just don't work in practice or even conceptually. A forward window for piloting on such a vehicle would serve very little practical purpose anyway. Better, I think, to utilize the existing technology already evident aboard the Enterprise. The three "windows" on the forward hull of the interior are not windows at all in the conventional sense but rather they're overhead monitors or viewing screens. And they work quite well that way angled downward towards to the pilot and navigator. Those monitors function much the same as the overhead screens on the Enterprise bridge as well as the main viewscreen. And as seen from the outside I see those three rectangular panels on the forward hull demarking where the shuttlecraft's space and planetary sensor arrays are situated.

Anyway that's my take on it. And, yes, it can be considered a bit revisionist. But it just seems to work better in my view.

Lastly, I apologize that my images will not be done in up-to-date cgi or CAD simply because I don't have any of those programs and I also don't know how to use them. *Sigh* Someday perhaps. Instead I'll be using oldfashioned hand drafting for my little project.

Comments?
 
See less See more
#3 · (Edited)
Correction: I do have Blender, but I haven't a clue how to use it. I'll have to get myself a tutorial at some point and start learning.


In some respects the miniature is closer to all the depictions of the shuttlecraft we've seen over the years. But for me the fullsize exterior mock-up seems more "real" even if it is inconsistent with the standing room interior mock-up we saw onscreen.

At this point I'm more inclined to use the fullsize exterior as the main guide and modifying it to some degree to incorporate some of the features of the miniature. By this I mostly mean that my version will not be guite as obviously "nose down" as the construction plans show. However, I see no reason why the TOS production staff couldn't have constructed their fullsize exterior with the craft's centerline exactly parallel with the engine nacelles. The fact that they didn't strongly suggests that that is what they waned the vehicle to look like. And it does make for a more intriguing looking vehicle and far less plain and simple as many of us have long assumed.

I've come to realize that all these years I've envisioned the shuttlecraft quite differently than the one that was actually designed and built. I admit to some extent it can be a little disturbing to reevaluate long held perceptions. This isn't without precedent because there have been many things I've learned about TOS over the years that I hadn't realized or even suspected before. Upon studying more faithful drawings of the Enterprise than FJ's for example I've learned of details that I somehow missed even with seeing the ship on tv for God knows how many times. Some of the detail was lost due to poor picture resolution on those old tv sets and went unnoticed until the better televisions of today and the digital remastering of the episodes as well as dvd.
 
#4 · (Edited)
Warped9 said:
However, I see no reason why the TOS production staff couldn't have constructed their fullsize exterior with the craft's centerline exactly parallel with the engine nacelles. The fact that they didn't strongly suggests that that is what they waned the vehicle to look like.
Both the miniature and the larger mockup were made by AMT. I doubt they had much direct feedback from any of the show's writers as to the intent of the look. If they diverged from the construction drawings, I doubt it was because of a conscious decision on the part of the TOS production people.

Warped9 said:
At this point I'm more inclined to use the fullsize exterior as the main guide and modifying it to some degree to incorporate some of the features of the miniature. By this I mostly mean that my version will not be guite as obviously "nose down" as the construction plans show.
If you have access to construction plans please share! :)

No one has ever been able to locate them to my knowledge before now.

Warped9 said:
However, I see no reason why the TOS production staff couldn't have constructed their fullsize exterior with the craft's centerline exactly parallel with the engine nacelles. The fact that they didn't strongly suggests that that is what they waned the vehicle to look like.
That's a problematic assumption.

Some pictures of the shuttlecraft show her with widely varying side profiles.
The most nose-down shot I know of was the hangerbay shot. The main body of the ship almost looks twisted unnaturally.

That probably has a lot to do with the fact that the prop never rested on the same points every time it was set up. They used jacks underneath the body to hold her up, keeping the weight off the nacelle and rear pads.

I totally agree that the centerline wasn't parallel to the nacelles, question is how much it diverged, just a little as seen in some shots or quite a bit as seen in that hangerbay shot.

Personally I think it makes a ton of sense to ignore the divergence.
The reason being is that if you don't, the interior set can not either be drawn level or have a consistent centerline if you do draw it as level.

Warped9 said:
Anyway that's my take on it. And, yes, it can be considered a bit revisionist. But it just seems to work better in my view.

Comments?
Lots of revisionism is needed to make the interior vs. the exterior agree in an even semi-logical way, such as the windows.

No need to apologize. :)
 
#5 ·
Warped9 said:
One issue I intended to tackle differently is that of alligning the forward "windows" as shown from the inside and out...

Anyway that's my take on it. And, yes, it can be considered a bit revisionist. But it just seems to work better in my view.
Actually that doesn't seem as revisionist as you might think.

When considering that the windows tended to be closed most of the time, and that on more than one occasion we saw only the center window opened to display for everyone what was happening outside the shuttlecraft, the idea that they were actually view screens rather than strictly windows makes sense.


Hopefully the act of Exeter with my take on the shuttlecraft interior will show up soon. When I was doing my plans I didn't have to worry about reconciling the interior with the exterior or a miniature... I was to produce plans that would exactly recreate the look and feel of the original interior filming set. And after seeing the constructed set... and images of the set, I think I came pretty darn close.

I guess the real test will be how well it filmed... and I haven't seen any of that footage.
 
#6 ·
Chuck_P.R. said:
Both the miniature and the larger mockup were made by AMT. I doubt they had much direct feedback from any of the show's writers as to the intent of the look. If they diverged from the construction drawings, I doubt it was because of a conscious decision on the part of the TOS production people.



If you have access to construction plans please share! :)

No one has ever been able to locate them to my knowledge before now.



That's a problematic assumption.

Some pictures of the shuttlecraft show her with widely varying side profiles.
The most nose-down shot I know of was the hangerbay shot. The main body of the ship almost looks twisted unnaturally.

That probably has a lot to do with the fact that the prop never rested on the same points every time it was set up. They used jacks underneath the body to hold her up, keeping the weight off the nacelle and rear pads.

I totally agree that the centerline wasn't parallel to the nacelles, question is how much it diverged, just a little as seen in some shots or quite a bit as seen in that hangerbay shot.

Personally I think it makes a ton of sense to ignore the divergence.
The reason being is that if you don't, the interior set can not either be drawn level or have a consistent centerline if you do draw it as level.



Lots of revisionism is needed to make the interior vs. the exterior agree in an even semi-logical way, such as the windows.

No need to apologize. :)
If possible I'd like to see those renderings.

By "construction plans" I'm refering to the drawings found on Phil Broad's cloudster.com.

One thing to remember: since the shuttlecraft has its own artificial gravity then there really is nothing to say that the floor absolutely has to be parallel to the hangar bay deck or the planetary ground outside the craft when landed.

Also upon studying photos of the miniature it at least appears that pretty much all the dimension of the craft were maintained only the main hull was oriented so that the hull's centerline was parallel with the engine nacelles.
 
#7 ·
I just had an odd experience today. On my lunch break I was doodling ideas about the shuttlecraft when there was something about the look of my sketch that leapt out at me. When looked at in a particular way the design has a jacked-up-in-the-rear hotrod look to it. I wonder if this is what was slyly intended.
 
#9 ·
I think the actual consideration in the design was for a bit of a forced-perspective effect to make their little mockup look bigger. It was typically photographed from the rear looking forward which is where the tappered angles would be most effective. That's just my guess but it is in keeping with typical studio practices.
 
#10 ·
The shuttlecraft is a wonderful example of how budgetary restrictions can actually work in an artist’s favor. When Jeffries’ sleeker, curvier, more complex designs were deemed financially impractical for a full-scale mockup he was faced with the challenge of making what is essentially a big box look streamlined. The result, IMO, is a more elegant and aesthetically pleasing design than what was originally envisioned.

Once again, less was more.
 
#11 ·
X15-A2 said:
I think the actual consideration in the design was for a bit of a forced-perspective effect to make their little mockup look bigger. It was typically photographed from the rear looking forward which is where the tappered angles would be most effective. That's just my guess but it is in keeping with typical studio practices.
I agree.
I also think the downward sloping roof combined with the upward sloping port and starboard sides also was designed to exaggerate the length of the craft.
I can't think of any logical reason to slope the roof downward.
 
#12 ·
Carson Dyle said:
The shuttlecraft is a wonderful example of how budgetary restrictions can actually work in an artist’s favor. When Jeffries’ sleeker, curvier, more complex designs were deemed financially impractical for a full-scale mockup he was faced with the challenge of making what is essentially a big box look streamlined. The result, IMO, is a more elegant and aesthetically pleasing design than what was originally envisioned.

Once again, less was more.
I agree. While some have accused the Galileo of looking box-like, it's much more complicated once you study it.

Jefferies' original drawing(which the series Enterprise's shuttlepods more closely resemble) seem to me to have been less imaginative. It basically looked like a big pill with the top front lopped off.
 
#13 ·
Chuck_P.R. said:
While some have accused the Galileo of looking box-like, it's much more complicated once you study it.
I blame the AMT model kit for this misconception.;)

I grew up a few blocks away from the suburban front yard where the full-scale shuttlecraft mockup sat for several years during mid 70's. I'll never forget how disappointed I was when the model came out. To this day I cannot understand how the company responsible for the studio mock-up could have gotten the model so wrong.
 
#338 ·
Actually it's quite simple to explain. Miscommunication. When the designs for the shuttlecraft were sent to AMT's model makers, someone omitted a top exterior view of the craft. The model makers only had a plan view of the interior. Based on that, they thought that the outside followed the "bent" shape of the interior.
 
#14 ·
The idea that MJ incorporated the idea of forced perspective into the design is quite possible. I will say, however, that a wedged shaped profile in a vehicle isn't without real world precedent. Cars certainly do have it as do many aircraft. And, of course, the U.S. shuttle orbiter also has a wedged shaped profile.

Personally I like the idea of there being at least some subtle wedge to the design rather than being all parallel lines. I find it more distinctive and interesting.
 
#15 ·
Warped9 said:
The idea that MJ incorporated the idea of forced perspective into the design is quite possible. I will say, however, that a wedged shaped profile in a vehicle isn't without real world precedent. Cars certainly do have it as do many aircraft. And, of course, the U.S. shuttle orbiter also has a wedged shaped profile.

Personally I like the idea of there being at least some subtle wedge to the design rather than being all parallel lines. I find it more distinctive and interesting.
:confused:

It is wedge shaped.
 
#17 ·
Okay, finally some pics. The first is a comparison in elevation between the filming minature (as it appeared on TNG in 1987) and the fullsize mock-up as it appeared in TOS.



Note the distinctions between the two. The fullsize mock-up shows its obvious "nose down" orientation. Also evident when you look at the top leading edge of the forward hull is the lack of the small curve upwards of the leading edge on the minature.

Next is a comparison in straight on elevation.



The lowest image is, of course, my direction with my version. What may not be apparent here is the subtle tapering of the stabilizer/centerline from bow to stern. In the centre image (miniature orientation) the centerline is exactly parrallel with the nacelles and the ground. In the lowest image (proposed orientation) it is the underside of the stabilizer that is parallel with the nacelles and the ground. Yes, it is a subtle difference, but one I feel comes closest to accomodating the differences between the miniature and the fullsize mock-up in overall appearance.
 
#18 ·
Warped9 said:
Note the distinctions between the two. The fullsize mock-up shows its obvious "nose down" orientation.
So what you are trying to do is match the fact that the full size shuttlecraft can't support it's own body weight?

What you are seeing is the fact that the wings/supports are bowing under the weight of the main hull. I'm pretty sure that the designers and builders of the full size shuttlecraft were not attempting to create that look.

Also the lines on your illustration are off a little on the full size drawing.
 

Attachments

#19 · (Edited)
While I agree that the craft is abnormally twisted in this view, the fullsize mockup does have a very slightly nose down profile even without the wings on.

Warped 9 seems to like the nose down look.
To each their own.

I know you probably don't seriously believe that he is trying to "match the fact that the full size shuttlecraft can't support it's own body weight."

No need to jump all over the guy with his very first drawing. Warped 9 is a pretty talented guy.

I think the line criticism could be helpful in that it shows the twisting of the wings. Good and helpful points made in your picture there.

But we both know he simply likes the nose down view and isn't trying to make the shuttle look unstable.

Give the guy the benefit of doing at least a few drawings and revisions before getting snippy with him, please? :)

I can't tell you how many drawings, tracings and info FourMadMen and I sent back and forth to one another in order to get the different components to the point they are now on our Galileo effort, from the outer contours to the phaser cabinet we put in probably hundreds of hours of work.

Let's let Warped 9 get a few more under his belt before slapping him across the face with the wet fish of un-constructive criticism.
 
#20 ·
Chuck_P.R. said:
No need to jump all over the guy with his very first drawing.

and

...before getting snippy with him, please? :)

and

...before slapping him across the face with the wet fish of un-constructive criticism.
Firstly... wow, that is an incredible over reaction on your part! Truly amazing... as nothing I said matches any of your characterizations.

My suggestion... don't assume a post is attacking someone when it isn't. That is a very good way to get on people's (in this case, my) wrong side. And so far the only person jumping all over any one seems to be you jumping all over me.

Here is a thought... you could lead by example. ;)

:rolleyes:

Well, now that we have that out of the way...

I can't tell you how many drawings, tracings and info FourMadMen and I sent back and forth to one another in order to get the different components to the point they are now on our Galileo effort, from the outer contours to the phaser cabinet we put in probably hundreds of hours of work.

Let's let Warped 9 get a few more under his belt...
The point is, he is asking us for input (or he would not have put together this thread)... I surely hope that you are not saying that we should let him continue on without comment and then (at some point later on) point things out? Possibly at a point when it would be harder to make changes.

As for how talented Warped 9 is, I know how talented he is, I've been following his work in this forum for quite some time. More importantly, I respect him and his work enough not to coddle him.

If you respect his workmanship... help him with it.

I know that I, personally, hate it when people tell me after the fact that they saw something early on but held back to not hurt my feelings or that they didn't feel it was their place.


I'm glad we had this chat. :D
 
#21 ·
Sorry if your

"So what you are trying to do is match the fact that the full size shuttlecraft can't support it's own body weight?"

comment was meant to be fecious rather then Trek-geekish-sarcasm.

It's a little hard to tell by the statement as it stands, and it seemed quite obvious that he wasn't trying to mimick instability. There is often a fine line between chiding feciousness and sarcasm.

If I missed the good natured point of your ribbing I apologize, and let me assure you I wasn't trying to make a big issue of it. You have my humble apologies.

I did compliment you on your pic and line illustrations showing the twisting quite clearly and I meant that sincerely.

I'm glad we had this chat too. :)
 
#22 · (Edited)
Please note that my goal is to ensure this vehicle does not look like it's sagging under its own weight while still looking most like the vehicle we saw onscreen. ;) And as we've seen over the years and most recently with Phil Broad's and FourMadMen's efforts different individuals with different perspectives can arrive at different solutions to such an exercise.
 
#23 · (Edited)
Some more finessing. Here we have a cleaner look at the direction I'm going in. The pink line represents how the main hull is oriented in relation to the nacelles and the ground. It's subtle but here the inner deck would be pitched forward about two degrees or so, but since the vehicle will then be sitting back about the same two or three degrees then things cancel each other out and the inside deck will then be parallel with the ground when the craft is landed. The blue area obviously represents the countour of the interior.



Exercises such as this always give me a new appreciation for TOS' designers and production staff. They evidently had a very keen eye and overall sense of design that included a great deal of subtlety and detail that flies in the face of what are often assumed to be very plain and simple designs.
 
#25 ·
The mockup doesn't "sag", it is a very strong structure, as built. It sits the way it sits because that is how it was built. If that nose-down posture is the result of bad alignment during construction or a desire for a forced-perspective effect when viewed from the rear is anybody's guess but it most definitely does not sag.

It should also be pointed out here that it's ground stance changed from one episode to another, an effect that I ascribed to the fact that the forward landing feet were mounted to threaded shafts, which undoubtedly allowed them to be screwed up or down like a car jack.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top